Rev. 11-6-08
Editorially revised 04-23-09
Undergraduate University Curriculum Committee
Course Proposal Form for Courses Numbered 0001 – 4999
1.
Course Prefix and Number:
2.
Date:
3.
Requested Action (check only one box):
X
4.
POLS 3080
October 5, 2009
New Course
Justification for new course, revision, unbanking, or renumbering:
Two broad University goals, emphasized both at the state level and at ECU, relate to this
course proposal: to “promote more global awareness through the ECU curriculum,” in
ECU’s Plan for Internationalization (2005), and “New courses will be developed as needed
to make ECU students more globally aware and competitive” in the 2008 UNC Tomorrow
plan. In preparing students for a global world, it is essential that they be exposed to the
issues and contributions of many varied countries and regions.
Security issues are increasingly a part of this global environment, and the politics of
addressing these security issues are complex. In the post-9/11 world, governments are
increasingly concerned about the threat posed by weapons of mass destruction. This
course will provide students with an improved understanding of the unique challenges
posed to governments by WMD as a class of weapons, as well as the unique problems
associated with each type of weapon. This course will contribute to the Political Science
department’s curriculum in International Relations and Inter-governmental relations, as
well as to the interdisciplinary Security Studies minor.
The Security Studies program is a multidisciplinary program which addresses the many
challenges to national security and to governments at all levels in the post-9/11 world,
through an undergraduate minor, a graduate certificate, and a proposed MS.
5.
Course description exactly as it should appear in the next catalog:
3080. Weapons of Mass Destruction (3) (S) Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear weapons,
their potential use by terrorists or rogue states, and the challenges governments face at all levels
as they prepare to counter these threats.
6.
If this is a course revision, briefly describe the requested change:
1
149, 151, 482
7.
Page number from current PDF undergraduate catalog:
8.
9.
10.
The Writing Across the Curriculum
The Service-Learning
The Academic Standards Committee must approve Foundations Curriculum Credit
11.
Course Credit:
3
Lecture
Weekly
Per Term
or
=
Credit Hours
Total Credit Hours
3
s.h.
s.h.
40
12.
Anticipated yearly student enrollment:
13.
Affected Degrees or Academic Programs:
Degree(s)/Course(s)
3
PDF Catalog Page
Change in Degree Hours
N/A
14.
Overlapping or Duplication with Affected Units or Programs:
X
15.
Approval by the Council for Teacher Education (required for courses affecting
teacher education programs):
X
16.
Not Applicable
Instructional Format: please identify the appropriate instructional format(s):
X
17.
Not Applicable
Lecture
Online
Statements of Support:
(Please attach a memorandum that addresses the budgetary and staff impact of this
proposal.)
2
18.
Syllabus – please insert course syllabus below. include (a) the name of the textbook
chosen for the course, (b) the course objectives, (c) the course content outline, and
(d) the course assignments and grading plan.
POLS 3080: Weapons of Mass Destruction
Purpose of this Class: Examination of the weapons that may be utilized by terrorists or rogue states. Weapons
categories will include: chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear. The primary focus will be on the challenges
governments face at all levels to prepare to counter these diverse threats.
A. Readings:
Readings will be drawn from the following list:
Ken Alibek, Biohazard New York: Dell Publishing, 1999.
Richard Betts, “The New Threat of Mass Destruction,” Foreign Affairs (January/February 1998).
Christopher Chyba, “Toward Biological Security,” Foreign Affairs (May/June 2002).
Alfred Crosby, America’s Forgotten Pandemic: The Influenza of 1918 Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.
Laurie Garrett, “The Nightmare of Bioterrorism” Foreign Affairs (January/February 2001).
Kate Ivanova and Todd Sandler, “CBRN Incidents: Political Regimes, Perpetrators, and Targets,” TPV 18:3 (Fall 2006),
423-448
Karl-Heinz Kamp, Joseph F. Pilat, Jessica Stern, Richard A. Falkenrath, “WMD Terrorism: An Exchange,” Survival
(Winter 1998/99), pp. 168-183.
Gina Kolata, Flu New York: Touchstone (1999).
Marc Ostfield, “Bioterrorism as a Foreign Policy Issue,” SAIS Review (Win-Spr 2004), 131-146.
Jerrold Post, “Differentiating the Threats of Chemical and Biological Weapons: Motivations and Constraints,” Peace
and Conflict (September 2002), 187-200.
Richard Preston, The Demon in the Freezer New York: Random House (2002).
William Rosenau, “Aum Shinrikyo’s Biological Weapons Program: Why Did it Fail?” Studies in Conflict & Terrorism
(July-August 2001), pp. 289-298.
Scott Sagan and Kenneth Waltz, The Spread of Nuclear Weapons New York: WW Norton, 2003.
Martin Schram, Avoiding Armageddon: Our Future, Our Choice. New York: Basic Books, 2003.
Amy Smithson and Leslie-Ann Levy, Ataxia Washington, DC: Henry Stimson Center, 2000.
Jessica Stern, “Dreaded Risks and the Control of Biological Weapons,” International Security (2002/03), 89-123.
3
Jessica Stern, The Ultimate Terrorists (Harvard University Press, 2000).
Jonathan B. Tucker, Scourge New York: Atlantic Monthly Press, 2001.
B. Course Objectives: Through this course, students will be able to:






Define weapons of mass destruction;
Evaluate alternate definitions of WMD;
Identify unique impacts of each type of weapon;
Compare and contrast challenges posed to governments by the various classes of WMD;
Critique governmental response plans for WMD and other disasters; and
Develop, research, and defend arguments in writing.
C. Course Outline:
1. Introductory Material (1.5 weeks)
 Defining WMDs and their policy relevance.
 Intergovernmental plans to address day-to-day emergencies
 Intergovernmental plans to address a WMD-type catastrophe.
2. Biological Weapons (2.5 weeks)
 Identify the different types of biological agents that the US and other governments deem possible weapons
threats.
o Agents will include those identified as threatening by the CDC, those known to be associated with
terrorist or rogue state threats, and naturally-occurring pandemics.
 The pandemic diseases provide examples of how governments and people react to the spread of disease
and are useful given the dearth of actual intentional disease spread cases.
3. Chemical Weapons (2.5 weeks)
 Focuses on chemicals that could be used by terrorists or rogue states;
o theoretical arguments about what should happen in response to a major chemical incident.
o Past cases of chemical weapons use and chemical accidents for practical examples of the impact of
chemicals on the populace and governmental response challenges.
Midterm Exam
4. Radiological Weapons (2.5 weeks)
 The various radioactive materials, as well as their potential to do harm.
o The impact of radiation on the human body is covered to assist students in determining which
materials would be threatening and which would not.
o Different means of attack.
4
5. Nuclear Weapons (2.5 weeks) The different types of nuclear weapons and who might have or want them
 Nuclear weapons tests and the cases of Hiroshima and Nagasaki demonstrate the impact.
 Emergency response requirements anticipated after such an incident
6. Conclusions (2 weeks)
 Comparisons across the types of weapons and specific agents within each type are drawn.
o Students identify consistencies and differences in the impacts
o Students identify the appropriate response measures required of government.
Final Exam
D. COURSE ASSIGNMENTS AND GRADING PLAN:
Point scale:
A: 90-100%, B: 80-89%, C: 70-79%, D: 60-69%, F: 0-59%
Midterm Exam:
100 points
(25%)
Three short papers: 150 points
(37.5%)
Participation:
50 points
(12.5%)
Final Exam:
100 points
(25%)
Short Writing Assignments:
Assignment 1 Biological and Chemical Agents
Write a 5-7 page paper (with appropriately cited research) in which you examine the country’s level of preparation
for encountering either a biological or a chemical attack. The paper may be informed by past literature, but should
focus on a post-9/11 analysis. In other words, are we any better prepared now than we were then? You can draw
upon government documents, academic publications, newspapers or (within reason) popular press for your analysis.
Papers without citations will receive a “0.”
Assignment 2 Review a movie or book (list attached). Write a 5-7 page, double-spaced, typed paper analyzing the
movie or book. Your analysis MUST be informed by additional relevant research. Note the use of the word
analyzing. If you merely summarize the work you viewed or read, you will get a maximum of a D on the paper. Your
paper should be ¼ summary and ¾ analysis of the premises of the work based on the literature. You can be wrong
on these things…which, of course, would count against you…so research thoroughly and carefully. You could choose
a variety of different approaches to the assignment including but not limited to:



How realistic was the movie or book based on your knowledge from class?
How did class help you better understand the movie or book?
How did the movie or book help you better understand class materials?
5
You can choose any one of the following (or you could choose to compare two or more):
Robin Cook’s Outbreak (book or movie)
Sum of All Fears
Fat Man and Little Boy kind of old HBO Movie—but just excellent
The Peacemaker
The Rock
Stephen King’s The Stand (book or movie)
Ann Rule’s Bitter Harvest
Biohazard by Ken Alibek
Scourge by Jonathan Tucker
The Demon in the Freezer by Richard Preston
Cobra Event by Richard Preston
Flu by Gina Kolata
Germs by Judith Miller et al
Avoiding Armageddon (book or any of the documentaries)
The Spread of Nuclear Weapons by Waltz and Sagan
America’s Forgotten Pandemic by Crosby
Other books or movies as approved in writing by instructor
Assignment 3 In the terrorism literature, authors sometimes discuss the difference between high-probability/lowimpact and low-probability/high-impact attacks. Using research conducted outside of the class materials, (citing
class materials is not permitted and will result in a failing grade) write a 5-7 page paper in which you analyze each of
the WMD threats we have studied this semesters based on this dichotomy. Your comparison should devote equal
time to discussing each of the different kinds of weapons.
Your grade on this assignment will be based on the strength of your arguments and the quality of the materials that
inform them. In particular, as each judgment you make will be contentious, you must provide evidence from the
literature that demonstrates why your position is the correct one.
6